tanks/vehicles T-90M 'Breakthrough-3' : Modernizing The Russian Predator

[WulfPack 1,690]

 

 

 

In mid 2017, the Russian MoD finally unveiled Uralvagonzavod’s newest member of the T-90 family. The name wasn’t what many people expected. It was generally assumed to be T-90AM but that didn’t end up being the case. It was instead decided to use the name T-90M. When it was shown off, it had an information card with few pieces of inaccurate information. Such as implying that it now used the 2A46M-4 and weighing 46.5 tons. That gun would mean that the T-90M used a T-80 style of automatic loader, something we know to be 100% false. I’m not sure why it had such inaccurate basic information. As of April 2020, the first deliveries of the T-90M have finally begun. With the 2nd Guards Motorized Rifle Division of the 1st Guards Tank Army of the Western Military District being the first to receive the new MBT.

 

 

Kalina Fire Control System:

Spoiler

 

The most notable points of this are the ‘Sosna-U’ Multi Channel gunner's sight and the ‘Hawkeye’ Multi Channel commander’s sight. Sosna’s thermal sighting channel uses the French designed 2nd generation Catherine-FC. It also uses a ballistic computer that enables it to detect targets, track them, and provide a firing solution that includes leading with information that is provided by the laser range finder. As one would expect, the sight is stabilized on both planes. A major limitation for Sosna is the pathetic zoom it offers. A measly 3x optical magnification and an equal disappointing 6x maximum digital magnification. The laser rangefinder is capable of measuring range out to 7500 meters. The gunner has two ways of using an eyepiece or a flat screen display with resolution 640x480px. Unlike some other Russian modernizations, the Gunner's sight can be made combat ready with leaving the protection on the tank. T-72B3, T-72B3 Obr 16, and T-80BVM all require the gunner to expose himself to unbolt the cover from the Sosna-U. BMD-4M2, T-90M, BMPT, and even T-14 requires the commander to expose himself to unbolt the cover of the CITV. The reason for these changes is not known.

Reportedly, T-90M now has a new sight with a domestic thermal sight replacing the Catherine-FC. There is also a chance T-90M will be getting the ‘Sodema’ sight that has been used on BMP-3s(May not longer be applicable).
Sosna takes the place of the previous ESSA sight and making previous primary sight (1G46?) the current backup sight, should there be problems with the Sosna. Both the gunner and commander can see the feed from this sight. The commander also has the same display, should he need to operate the gun. 
 I’m uncertain about the commander’s Hawkeye sight but presumably it offers similar sighting capabilities to the Sosna in a near 360 degree viewing arc. Reportedly, Hawkeye features a 3rd Gen thermal sight but I’m uncertain about this. The total viewing area for both the gunner and commander is just about doubled from the previous generation, with the aid of four external TVKT-95N TV cameras. All but one is one the top off the turret with one being mounted on the TC’s side of the turret just above the ERA The TC is able to point at the direction of a certain camera with the push of a button. 
The commander also has access to Remote Control Weapons Station which mounts the new 9P49MT Kord-MT with a variable rate of fire. A noticeable external change to it is the new large quintuple baffle muzzle break.
The tank also features 4 laser detectors that are placed on either side of the gun and one on both sides of the turret. Meaning T-90M has a full 360 degree of laser detection. Should M have a laser placed on it, the system will automatically traverse the turret to the direction of the laser emitter and deploy some of the tanks 12 902B smoke grenades with 7 on the TC’s side of the turret and 5 are stored on the Gunner’s side. These same detectors have been present on Russian tanks all the way back to T-80UK. 
Also part of this is the new 2E58 stabilizer that gives MS either the same traverse of 40 Degs/S or raises it to 45 Deg/S. This stabilizer most likely provides a smoother and more accurate slewing of the turret. How it affects elevation rates is not currently known. 
Firepower:-

Spoiler

T-90M carriers over the same 2A46M-5 that was used on T-90MS and T-90A. On average, the new chrome lined barrel gives T-90M an accuracy increase of 15-20% and 1.7 times for when firing on the move. To be more specific, it’s generally 20-30% for APFSDS, 4-12% for HEAT-FS, and 21-38% for HE-Frag. It is a misconception that T-90M mounts the new 2A82 but currently it does not.
Ammunition:
Like T-90A before it, T-90M has the new memory unit installed in the automatic loader that allows it to load and fire the new 3BM59, 3BM60 APFSDS and the 9M119 series of ATGMs. M can fire any ammunition that Russia  has in storage. The FCS just requires the ballistic data for the preferred ammunition.  
Ammunition Stowage:

Spoiler

A total of 10 rounds of 125-MM ammunition has been moved to the external turret bustle with the center “rack” holding 10 propellent charges and the outer “racks” holding each 5 rounds. The outer “racks” may be restricted to just HEAT-FS and HE-Frag, I’m not sure if APFSDS can be stowed in them. I believe this was mostly done to allow greater room for more modern elerontics. In addition to the 22 rounds in the automatic loader, 8 rounds are stowed to the rear of the loader. The crew does not have access to the bustle from the inside of the tank. Should they exhaust the 22 + 8 on the interior, they would have to withdraw from combat and replenish the automatic loader.
A PTKM is fitted in the coaxial position next to the 2A46M-5. The PKTM has 2000 rounds of 7.62x54R in a single belt.
Protection:- 
Unlike the T-90A and carried over from T-90MS, M comes outfitted with the newish 4S23 ‘Relikt’ Heavy Explosive Reactive armor that was first seen on the prototype Object 199 BMPT in 1999. In an old catalogue from NII STALI, 4S23 was claimed to improve protection from shaped charges by 2.0 times and APFSDS by 1.6 times. However, at a glance, this can be seen as a minimal improvement due Kontakt-5 being claimed to have improved protection from shaped charges by 2.0 times.(I probably misunderstood this and it probably mean that it provides around 2 times the HEAT protection as Kontakt-5.) Even if the HEAT resistance is to a similar degree, 4S23 is capable of defeating tandem warheads, something that would defeat Kontakt-5. The layout of Relikt can only be considered as excellent, since there are no obvious gaps in it. Nearly the entire turret face, upper frontal plate, and the sides of the hull are protected by Relikt. The uneven look of the ERA on the UFP is caused by Relikt having an air gap behind it. The top of the turret rear seems like it can be optionally fitted with more ERA. Should the ERA layer be damaged, the whole setup can be removed and replaced with a new 4S23.
 Despite the thin look of the sideskirts, it has been confirmed via the show "Военная приемка" on the T-90M "Proryv" published by TV Zvezda that the skirts do indeed contain explosive elements. With the dimensions of Relikt being 250x125x7 mm and with the skirts being an estimated 40-50mm thick, it would be possible to stack the 2 necessary explosive elements. However, they seem to lack the 2nd flyer plate, thus limiting the protection they offer. The skirts containing Relikt was confirmed by UVZ in an advertisement catalogue using the term “with built in reactive armor of late generation” for both the UFP and skirts. Additional soft ERA can be added to sit on the Relikt skirts. Little is known about these ERA bags other than they contain elements from 4S24 and special plastic inserts. Apparently the inserts are filled with some sort of sand. This additional soft is likely meant to aid in protecting the tank from parallel side hits from RPGs. Probably coming from situations Russia learned from city fighting. At the optimum angel for the Relikt skirts, this combination likely allows T-90M’s lateral protection to exceed 1100 vs HEAT based weapons making it immune to the vast majority said weapons. 

Spoiler

Unlike T-90MS, the turret sides are now protected by Relikt. These of course do the same job as the rest of them on the tank.

Spoiler

http://forumfiles.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/1842/42425.jpg

The turret face also has a new wedge that is protecting the mantle of the 2A46M-5. What the exact purpose is not currently but it likely adds some additional protection against shaped charges and fragmentation.
The rear portions of the turret, hull side, and the direct rear of the hull are protected with slat armor which is meant to defeat HEAT based weapons. The front, sides, and even the rear of the turret of the turret ring are also now protected by a sort of flexible slat armor. Currently the tanks that are being delivered to the Army seem to lack this. However, tt’s likely that this is an optional add-on. This has also been seen on the rear of the Isreali Merkava. During the 2020 Victory Day Parade, the T-90Ms were also outfitted additional steel to further protect the turret ring.

Spoiler

Mobility:-

Spoiler

Again, the engine was something not carried over from T-90A/S but was retained from the T-90MS and T-72B3 Obr. 2016. In order to deal with the added weight of the new turret and the 4S23 suite, T-90M uses the newish 1,130Hp V-92SF2 turbocharged engine. Due to the high heat of combustion, the new engine is virtually smokeless. Even with the added weight, M has a higher Hp/T ratio than T-90A/S(21.5) of 23.5. All of these combined with the existing transmission modified with an automatic gear shifter and steering wheel in place of the traditional tilers makes M the most maneuverable T-90 in the entire series.

 

Spoiler

http://forumfiles.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/1842/951432.jpg

 

 

Designation:-
T-90M Main Battle Tank 
Dimensions:-
Length: 22.6 feet
Length with gun forward: 31.7 feet
Height: ????
Width: 12.5 feet
Ground Clearance: 1.4 feet
Crew: 3 (Driver, Gunner, Commander)
Weight: 48 tons
Protection Estimates:- Without any source saying anything about changes to the base armor, I can only assume it wasn't changed.
Turret:-  

Outer Cheeks:-

750 - 950-MM vs KE The "new welded turret used on T-90A should provide at least the same basic protection, if not a slight increase. 

T-72B Obr 1989: 600-700 Roughly. I'm not sure if I'm remembering it correctly
Relikt adds about 150 - 250-MM
1000 - 1350- MM vs CE

T-72B Obr 1989: 700ish?
Relikt adds about 600-MM
Mantle:-
350-MM of Steel
Upper Frontal Plate:-

Relikt layout:

Spoiler

500 - 550-MM vs KE

(War Thunder: 600 vs KE)
Relikt adds about 150 - 250-MM
600 - 700-MM vs CE

(War Thunder: 900 vs CE)
Relikt adds about 600-MM
Lower Frontal Plate:-
80-MM of Steel
Upper Side Plate:-
80-MM of Steel
Lower Side Plate:-
20-MM of Steel
Nearly the entire side is protected with 4S23

Spoiler

Mobility:-
Engine: V-92S2F Diesel Engine outputting 1130 Horsepower

Top speed: 40 mph/65 km/h (7 Forward Gears)
Top speed in reverse: 2.8 mph/4 km/h(1 Reverse Gear)
Firepower:-
125-MM 2A46M-5

Munitions:-
3BM60 APFSDS (Reportedly a Tungsten Penetrator)

Spoiler

Penetration: 600-MM at 2K LOS (US wiki states 740-MM)
Muzzle Velocity: 1650 MPS/5413 FPS
3BM59 APFSDS (Reportedly a Depleted Uranium Penetrator) (Externally similar to 3BM60)

Estimated Penetration: 700-750 -MM at 2K LOS

Spoiler

Muzzle Velocity: 1650 MPS/5413 FPS

3BM48 APFSDS (Reportedly a Depleted Uranium Penetrator)

Spoiler

Muzzle velocity: 1700 mps

Estimated Penetrion: 500-550-MM @ 2K 

T-90M CAN load all previous APFSDS

3BK31 'Start-2' Triple Warhead HEAT-FS

Spoiler

Muzzle velocity: 905 mps

Penetration: 800-MM @ 90 Degrees

T-90M CAN load all previous HEAT-FS

3OF82 Remote Programable HE-Frag

Charge: 3.0 kg of A-IX-2

Fragments: 450 Tungsten Rods

This round creates 2,500 fragments when set to air-burst mode

9M119-M 'Invar' Tandem Warhead ATGM

Spoiler

Maximum Penetration: 950-MM

With ERA: -50-MM
Average Speed: 350 meters per second
Guidance System: Laser Beam Riding

Rate of fire for the same type of ammunition: 8 RPM

Rate of fire for ATGMs: 7.5 RPM

Ammunition load: 40 in total with 22 in the automatic loader,10 additional rounds stowed to the rear of the automatic loader, and 8 in an external bustle 
7.62-MM PKTM
Ammunition load: 2000 rounds
Maximum gun angles: ????
Horizontal turret traverse rate: 40-45 Degs/S
Gun elevation rate: ????
12.7-MM 6P49MT KORD

Spoiler

http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12974.0;attach=328858;image

Maximum gun angles: ???
Ammunition load: at least 300 rounds in total
The HMG is Stabilized on both planes

 

Sources:-

http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php/topic,12974.0.html

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2020/04/2-90.html

https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2020/04/13/13046671.shtml

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html

Edited August 11, 2021 by WulfPack

[leroyonly 4,236]

Open for discussion. 

[ColdMatches 940]

Yeah, would be a good addition after the eventual T-90A and brought in close to T-90AM. 

 

The only think that screws this tank in comparison to any other is the damned -4kph reverse gear that is unavoidable until the far far far future T-14 Armata.

[eleks12 999]

+1 When the game reaches at least 11.0 or higher.

[WulfPack 1,690]

6 hours ago, ColdMatches said:

Yeah, would be a good addition after the eventual T-90A and brought in close to T-90AM. 

There is no T-90AM. AM was a hypothetical name applied to a future T-90A upgrade. T-90M in that upgrade.

[MonkeyBussiness 1,191]

+1 such a sexy beast , i'm just afraid for futur top tier because some nations are already out of mbt or won't be equal to what "big" nations will have

[Jackvony 598]

+1 since heck Strv 122 is already around the same level as this.

 

Also, 3BM60 only has 600mm LOS at 2K.

 

[WulfPack 1,690]

6 minutes ago, Jackvony said:

+1 since heck Strv 122 is already around the same level as this.

 

Also, 3BM60 only has 600mm LOS at 2K.

 

[MonkeyBussiness 1,191]

7 hours ago, Jackvony said:

+1 since heck Strv 122 is already around the same level as this.

 

Also, 3BM60 only has 600mm LOS at 2K.

 

jesus it's worse than the italian lolpen

[Alan_Tovarishch 853]

There are some misconceptions about BM60. TBH i was a little dissapointed too when all this was published, but after giving some thought it actually makes sense: 

- Even if RHA penetration seems a little low, some of the most modern APFSDS have also other features that enhance their capabilities against certain types of armor. BM60 is described in the following brochure as follows:

 

 

"Предназначен для борьбы с современными и модернизированными танками, оснащенными сложной комбинированной или разнесенной броней, в том числе усиленной динамической защитой."

Источник: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/3vbm23/ ВТС «БАСТИОН» A.V.Karpenko

 

Translates roughly as "..able to defeat complex spaced armor arrays, modernized armor and enhanced ERA". To me that description points definetly to the most common tanks used by potential enemies of Russia except the US. Meaning, soviet T-72/64 equipped with 2nd generation ERA (Kontakt 5, Nozh, ERAWA, etc) and Leopard 2A5+. This is no outlandish claim given that those protection levels were achieved 30, 20 years ago. 2nd gen ERA can be defeated with a segmented penetrator design, like M829A3 or DM53/63. I´ll get back to the latter below. And about the spaced armor on the Leopard 2A5/6 (and perhaps 7?), the "wedges", we know that their effectiveness can be nullified by using longer penetrators, since that armor package was meant as a counter to the soviet era APFSDS while Svinets 1-2 exceed their length by up to 50 percent (penetrator length on Svinets 1-2 is around 660mm at minimum while the older APFSDS penetrators were 300-400 in length). Once the "wedges" are nullified, we know that the various armor packages underneath are of B tech, meaning a protection effectiveness of less than 500mm RHA. Still, even if the Leo in question had a C armor underneath the wedges, its protection should not exceed 550mm, so BM60 will guarantee a kill well past 2km. 

 

Now, let's compare BM60 with DM53/63:

Physically, DM-53 and BM60 are extremely similar, their full projectile lengths are 745 and 735 mm respectively. IRC DM-53 penetrator was about 670-680 while BM59/60 is 660. So, their penetration performance at the same impact speeds are comparable. When fired from an L44 gun, the muzzle velocity of DM53 is almost the same as BM59/60, the latter being 1660 m/s.

 

Now for estimations using L-D. First a disclaimer, the diameter of the penetrator is unconfirmed, i´ve made various estimations based on the pictures of mock ups exhibited in public events but the results are not conclusive. 22 mm seems the safest estimation and its logical if the penetrator length-diameter ratio is 30:1. However it could be different, we'll know for sure when better data is published.  

 

Against a target 260 BHN and 60º slope

                                                      BM59                        BM60      

V: 1660 m/s, range: 10mts           710 mm LOS         685 mm LOS                      

V: 1500 m/s, range: 2km?            656 mm LOS         608 mm LOS (hence, this might be the impact velocity at 2km)

 

For comparison, against the same target, M829A3 (penetrator of 680mm and 25mm in diameter) pens 703 mm LOS at point blanc.

 

What do we get out of these results? BM60 is effective against most european MBTs, if not all, and most certainly against those used by countries bordering Russia. On the other hand, BM59 (DU) is effective at combat ranges against the vast majority of Abrams currently in service by the US. Certainly defeating M1A2 beyond 2km, perhaps being effective against M1A2 SEPv1-2 (warning: we don't know for sure how much the armor was improved in those versions but i'm inclined to think that the difference with M1A2 is not very significant) and certainly not being effective against M1A2C which are in service but in limited numbers (i think that currently there are only 100 of them service IRC). All in all, BM59/60 should be considered in the same class as other advanced APFSDS such as M829A3, DM53/63, M338, K279, etc. Although the russian rounds are going into service with a 15 year delay,

 

I´ll see if by tomorrow or by monday i can post more sources about Relikt and T-90A/M base armor (Spoiler: it´s about 10-15 percent better vs KE compared to T-72B/90)

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Alan_Tovarishch

[WulfPack 1,690]

15 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I´ll see if by tomorrow or by monday i can post more sources about Relikt and T-90A/M base armor (Spoiler: it´s about 10-15 percent better vs KE compared to T-72B/90)

I would greatly appreciate all the help

[Jackvony 598]

1 hour ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

M829A3 (penetrator of 680mm and 25mm in diameter)

 

That's not entirely true.That's the size of the DU penetrator, but it has an add-on steel tip to defeat ERA. This still add pen against RHA, just not as much as if the 790mm length was DU. But the whole segmented penetrator is around 790mm long.

 

Spoiler

 

Also, 3BM59 wouldn't be able to penetrate turret cheeks of even the nerfed M1A2 we have ingame, never mind M1A2 SEPv1, which weighs about 2 tons more than M1A2 which is mostly armor. Likewise, most M1A2 SEPv2 inservice use a modernized armor beyond even SEP upgrade, designated by the serial number of the turret ending in M rather than U. According to the weapon systems handbook, M1A2 SEPv2 weighs 64.6 metric tons as well, indicating that the armor increase is substantial.

 

Spoiler

 

Hull is still vulnerable on likely M1A2 SEP, however I'm not so sure on SEPv2 if the hulls received this new M-designated armor. It's a pretty big change, considering the -U has been used since M1A1-HA. 

There will be 835 M1A2 SEPv3 by 2025, when M1A2 SEPv4 will start production.

 

Spoiler

 

I also think that BM60 defeats the wedges on the 2A5+ not because its long enough (considering the space to the turret in the center of the wedge is like 1000mm) but because its segmented. The wedges are only super effective if the initial NERA layer they are made of induces yaw into the rod, breaking it up or angling it off target before it hits main armors. This doesn't work as well on a segmented rod as, obviously, only the first segment gets effected and those this is less overall decay of the rod (just like how one defeat heavy ERA. 

[Alan_Tovarishch 853]

10 hours ago, Jackvony said:

 

That's not entirely true.That's the size of the DU penetrator, but it has an add-on steel tip to defeat ERA. This still add pen against RHA, just not as much as if the 790mm length was DU. But the whole segmented penetrator is around 790mm long.

 

I´m not in favor of that method. Firstly we would need exact brinell hardness number and the density of the steel used. Secondly, it is designed to snap off upon impact but we don't know how much force that would take, my guess is that the tip will break off even if it doesn't land on ERA. Might break away when impacting the front plate of a NERA array or it might snap off as it travels through NERA layers (in which case the projectile will be further destabilized than if the tip had broken away upon contact with the front plate), there are just too many variables. There is a "grey area" of situations where  we have to consider if the tip stays on or breaks away and i don't think that we have enough data to make a conclusive assessment. Between that and the potentially low contributions that the tip might make to overall penetration i think it's safer to assume that only the DU penetrator makes the actual penetrating.

 

10 hours ago, Jackvony said:

Also, 3BM59 wouldn't be able to penetrate turret cheeks of even the nerfed M1A2 we have ingame

I´m not sure that would be the case. The thing should penetrate almost 700mm with muzzle velocity, and WT tank fights are almost at knife fight ranges. I don´t want to bring here the debate about the M1A2 having nerfed armor but my position is that Gj is combining KE protection effectiveness of the swedish ´export´ package with the CE attributed to previous M1A1, which makes the current ingame M1A2, protection wise, better than the package tested by the swedes. And we don't have better sourced numbers than that.

 

10 hours ago, Jackvony said:

never mind M1A2 SEPv1, which weighs about 2 tons more than M1A2 which is mostly armor. Likewise, most M1A2 SEPv2 inservice use a modernized armor beyond even SEP upgrade, designated by the serial number of the turret ending in M rather than U. According to the weapon systems handbook, M1A2 SEPv2 weighs 64.6 metric tons as well, indicating that the armor increase is substantial.

 

It was my understanding that SEPv2 features the same armor package as SEPv1 and the difference in weight might be explained by extra junk the yanks mounted on top of it. Like the ridiculously big and heavy RWS, the CROWS (by itself it adds almost 200kg).  I just checked the ODIN, the stated weight of SEPv1 is 63,086 kg. Also both SEPv1 and v2 feature "M" turrets. Between that and the fact that potential KE penetrators the SEPs might face were essentially the same from the 90s into 2016 (when Svinets 1-2 was beginning mass production) my guess is that KE protection requirements didn´t change much (APFSDS fielded by the chinese during those years are also in the 600-650mm class) and the main difference to M1A2 would be to feature armor without relying on DU (we do have a source from early 2000s stating that they learned how to make DU-less armor having the same performance as "DU armor") and/or having better protection against tandem HEAT since mid 90s the russians did in fact managed to field (and sell to everyone and their mother) new more powerful ATGMS with warheads of 152mm. On the other hand, i doubt that the russians would spend a ruble of their constrained budget into buying ammo incapable of defeating one the most likely threat tanks fielded 15 years prior.

 

11 hours ago, Jackvony said:

I also think that BM60 defeats the wedges on the 2A5+ not because its long enough (considering the space to the turret in the center of the wedge is like 1000mm) but because its segmented. The wedges are only super effective if the initial NERA layer they are made of induces yaw into the rod, breaking it up or angling it off target before it hits main armors. This doesn't work as well on a segmented rod as, obviously, only the first segment gets effected and those this is less overall decay of the rod (just like how one defeat heavy ERA. 

The inner space of the wedges also features an internal or middle wall, when an APFSDS is long enough to make two points of contact between the outer wall and the middle wall it prevents from being destabilized. 

 

 

 

 

Now, for sources on T-90M.

 

First, base armor of T-90A both turret and UFP are 10-15 better vs KE than T-90:

"Основа башни Т-90С/А изготовлена из стальной брони средней твердости, которая существенно (на 10-15%) превосходит по противоснарядной стойкости литую броню средней твердости.

...

Бронирование и установка ВДЗ верхней детали носового узла корпуса Т-90А усовершенствованно по сравнению с Т-90 с приростом эквивалентной стойкости по БПС на 10…15%."

 

Source: http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-90A/t-90A.htm

 

About Relikt:

 

 

That is from the Nii Stali website in russian. In the T-90MS, relikt enhances APFSDS protection by 40 percent. The source says explicitly that Relikt will defeat M829A2 and M829A3 and other APFSDS penetrating up to 800mm. Heat protection, including tandem, is enhanced by 90 percent.

 

[Milocat 4,689]

It seems like we're going full-modern on tanks, so I suppose this addition wouldn't be out of place.  +1.

[WulfPack 1,690]

4 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

First, base armor of T-90A both turret and UFP are 10-15 better vs KE than T-90:

"Основа башни Т-90С/А изготовлена из стальной брони средней твердости, которая существенно (на 10-15%) превосходит по противоснарядной стойкости литую броню средней твердости.

...

Бронирование и установка ВДЗ верхней детали носового узла корпуса Т-90А усовершенствованно по сравнению с Т-90 с приростом эквивалентной стойкости по БПС на 10…15%."

 

Source: http://btvt.info/1inservice/t-90A/t-90A.htm

So the outer cheeks are in the 660-800 area? Roughly speaking because I'm not sure of Obr 89 numbers...

4 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

That is from the Nii Stali website in russian. In the T-90MS, relikt enhances APFSDS protection by 40 percent. The source says explicitly that Relikt will defeat M829A2 and M829A3 and other APFSDS penetrating up to 800mm. Heat protection, including tandem, is enhanced by 90 percent.

 

Is that compared to Kontakt-5 or without ERA?

[Alan_Tovarishch 853]

16 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

So the outer cheeks are in the 660-800 area? Roughly speaking because I'm not sure of Obr 89 numbers...

I would let Gj make the precise calculations. But yes, it´s pretty high, my ballpark would be around 650-660 from 30 deg. These numbers explain why NATO APFSDS put in service since early 2000s (M829A3, DM53, M338, etc.) were required to penetrate more than 650mm after K5 ERA at 2km, as they were clearly taking the T-90A as the reference threat tank. And also it makes sense why ZTZ99A has its base armor for the cheeks and perhaps also UFP being higher than 700 (but less than 800), they were required to be protected against those APFSDS even if said projectiles defeated FY-4 ERA which we can safely assume that they do.

Now, about the "800" i´m assuming that they are talking about the limit up to which Relikt is effective. In other words if an APFSDS is powerful enough to penetrate 800mm, Relikt will not be as effective. So if you had to translate the combined effectiveness to be represented ingame as a number, it would be very different depending of the incoming projectile. But to put it simply, for projectiles penetrating up to 800mm, the protection would be "660mm" plus 40 percent = about 935mm. 

 

26 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

Is that compared to Kontakt-5 or without ERA?

I would assume without ERA.

[Graxum 332]

On 01/05/2020 at 08:57, ColdMatches said:

Yeah, would be a good addition after the eventual T-90A and brought in close to T-90AM. 

 

The only think that screws this tank in comparison to any other is the damned -4kph reverse gear that is unavoidable until the far far far future T-14 Armata.

to be fair we could have the T-80BVM as an alternative to not suffer from the turtle-kmph reverse, but then we'll still have to suffer through the massive driver optics weakspot which is reduced (?) in the T-90s

[Jackvony 598]

4 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I´m not in favor of that method.

You may not be, but the patent from ATK, the people who built the round, are. It is a fact it increases penetration against monolithic targets, not my theory. 

Spoiler

 

4 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

The thing should penetrate almost 700mm with muzzle velocity,

 

That is penetration at 60 degrees, not vertical. Look at CL3143. It has higher penetration and yet it can only maybe pen the right cheek at less then 500m. And I will respect this thread and not bring the gimped M1A2 debate here.

 

4 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

It was my understanding that SEPv2 features the same armor package as SEPv1

 

SEPv2 prototype had weight simulators on it. This is for armor. The only thing that actually adds weight is the CROWS, but like you said that is only 200kg, not enough to explain the 1.6 ton increase in weight. The rest is electronics improvements.

Spoiler

 

There are still SEP tanks in service with U-serial numbers.

Spoiler

 

Which makes me believe this armor package may not have coincided with SEPv2, but was added around the same time to some tanks. I also don't understand why every US development has to coincide with a development in Russia and vice versa. Russia was trying to develop a better APFSDS than Svinents as far back as the mid 2000s, hence the data sheet explaining Vacuum rounds. Still, why not continue to purchase a round that is still effective against almost all threats. A round doesn't have to be able to penetrate every tank known to man to still be produced by a country. Likewise for the US, they could have been increasing armor to future proof the tank.

4 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

The inner space of the wedges also features an internal or middle wall

 

That middle wall covers maybe half the interior space. 

[Alan_Tovarishch 853]

Spoiler

 

I didn´t know that those graphs were from the patent, however the increase is negligible and not easily translated into the L-O formula. There are also the nuances that i explained earlier. But i stated my position, you stated yours, in 2 updates max we´ll see how Gj solves this one.

 

We surely are short on hard data for the SEP upgrades although i´m skeptic that the increase is very significant, not because they couldn´t do it but because there was no reason to. I have no idea how Gj will manage to model that. 

 

About the inner walls on the wedges, in several photos they are arranged in different angles, might be because they are semi dissasembled, in repairs. I´m currently busy but when i have more time i´ll try to study better how they should be properly mounted. Although i suspect that with the correct angles, they cover the entire 30 deg aspect leaving the mantlet zone uncovered.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Alan_Tovarishch

[DreamADream4Me 2,838]

Fully support this! 2A6 is coming (plus SEP and others) and it will be here before end of year, we will need T-90M to stay relevant at all!

[GoddePro 1,144]

On 12/05/2020 at 10:22, jackTIGR said:

Fully support this! 2A6 is coming (plus SEP and others) and it will be here before end of year, we will need T-90M to stay relevant at all!

we get T-90M at/after 2A6 and SEP, because it is arguably better protected and equally advanced. I don't care about your powercreep theories, I care about balance. And as a Russian TT supporter, I still think T-90M is too advanced for in-game. 

 

On 03/05/2020 at 06:26, Graxum said:

to be fair we could have the T-80BVM as an alternative to not suffer from the turtle-kmph reverse, but then we'll still have to suffer through the massive driver optics weakspot which is reduced (?) in the T-90s

I'm pretty sure T-90M gets new automatic transmission, so it might have NATO levels of reverse, I dunno. I'll have to look into it

[WulfPack 1,690]

1 hour ago, GoddePro said:

I'm pretty sure T-90M gets new automatic transmission, so it might have NATO levels of reverse, I dunno. I'll have to look into it

Nope same 4kmh

[Alan_Tovarishch 853]

2 hours ago, GoddePro said:

I'm pretty sure T-90M gets new automatic transmission, so it might have NATO levels of reverse, I dunno. 

For that you would have to wait for the T-84 or T-14. 

[GoddePro 1,144]

6 hours ago, WulfPack said:

Nope same 4kmh

 

5 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

For that you would have to wait for the T-84 or T-14. 

OOF

ahh well. I can still be one of those guys that says

'iRl t-90 dIdN't nEeD gOoD rEvErSe sPeEd'

[Alan_Tovarishch 853]

@WulfPack @Jackvony

 

Here is a source for BM-59 Svinets-1 (DU). It pens 700mm LOS.